Teller from the Tale

Randy Cohen, “The Ethicist” at the New York Times, writes, on the occasion of Budd Schulberg’s death, about Schulberg’s work, which he finds excellent, and Schulberg’s testimony before the House Un-American Activities Committee, which he finds “perfidious.” Cohen wonders: “Does rejecting the artist mean rejecting the art?”

His answer is, in effect, “No,” but the minimal terms with which he justifies the answer—

It’s hard to be a good person; it’s hard to produce great work. Most of us accomplish neither. To demand both might be asking more than human beings are capable of. To deprive oneself of great work created by a less-than-great person seems overly fastidious.

—miss what’s most interesting about the question. Great art often deals with extremes of human experience. Artists aren’t mere messengers or heralds; they are often the source of the events, emotions, or dilemmas their work presents. This is all the more so with modern art, which is so often bound up with the persona, even the person, of the artist. None of Shakespeare’s dramas has a professional playwright at the Globe Theatre as a protagonist, whereas we heirs of the Romantics often make the artist himself the center of his art. Under the circumstances, it would be surprising if the best artists—i.e., artists whose view of life is deeper and broader than that of most people—tended to conform to the narrower norms of the lives their spectators, readers, viewers lead. It isn’t just a matter, as Cohen suggests, of indulging or forgiving great artists conduct he dislikes; it’s a matter of accepting that great art is often inseparable from, and inconceivable without, some conduct he disapproves of.

Sign up to get the best of The New Yorker delivered to your inbox every day